Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Finally Happened: Single Rwy Ops JFK  
User currently offlineJFKLGANYC From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3626 posts, RR: 6
Posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 19388 times:

A branch off the Logan diversion thread . . .

JFK went down to single runway ops yesterday for the first time since 31L closure. Despite months of prep by airlines and ATC, there was no way to deal with this situation.

Hundreds of flights cancelled, dozens of diversions because of a wind-swept rain with 31L closed.

Who was there?

Let's Monday Morning Quarterback . . . was there a better way to do this construction?

This is predicted to happen ~5 times in the next 4 months.

47 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinerjpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 19165 times:

I thought the one-runway operations also happened on the first day of construction a few weeks ago?

User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26150 posts, RR: 50
Reply 2, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 18963 times:

Single runways did not really have much to do with it, and no it was not the first time with single runway ops – that happen by luck on the first day of the closure already two weeks ago.

It was the weather (winds) with gust above 60knots simply precluded operations for most carriers. For instance Delta has a 15kt restriction between the base wind and wind gust, while AA could not go if gust were in excess of 50kts. Additionally several flights went as far and reported severe turbulence below 3,000ft which precludes US carriers atleast from flying into known severe turbulence. Add in the low level windshear experienced by many flights also, it was simply not a day to go flying.

Back to the runways, ATC allowed some people to try to shoot approaches to 04's, but people failed to make those also and went around. Also LGA was down to one rwy for much of the time which also effects JFK configuration and traffic flow.

Last piece of info, the winds were so strong the controllers were feeling sea sick up in the tower, and due to wind strength the anemometer blew off leaving JFK with no minute-by-minute wind measurement. Instead tower had to use NWS estimates which were updated every 5mins.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineDC10sRule From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 172 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 18478 times:

Thanks to LAXintl for the info.

What a nasty day.


Reminds me of a day last summer at YYZ with winds gusting to 73kts, the ONLY airline that wanted to take off was:

Air France and their A340.


Wind was around 240 @60G73 KTS and at least 5 arrivals went around due to shear.
Thankfully it went down to around 45kt gusts after the front passed.

I wish our JFK friends a much better day today!!!!

JA



Giggity-Giggity..!
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 4, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 18258 times:

Not the first time, as pointed out:

Quoting rjpieces (Reply 1):
I thought the one-runway operations also happened on the first day of construction a few weeks ago?

It was forecast to happen four or five times throughout the whole construction period, so we've still only got three more occurrences.

Quoting JFKLGANYC (Thread starter):
Let's Monday Morning Quarterback . . . was there a better way to do this construction?

No. You can't do it in the winter because it's more expensive, and the winter is when the strong northwest winds blow more frequently, making single runway ops more likely. You don't want to do it in the height of the summer either, since that's the heavy travel season and that's when the big thunderstorms come in pretty much every afternoon. This is about the best time you could do it. Unfortunately, it takes four months to complete, so you're going to get some windy days at the beginning and some thunderstorms at the end, but there really is no way around that.

It should also be said that JFK would have had problems yesterday even if it had all runways working - it was really a gale out there. So attributing the trouble to the runway construction is quite unfair.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineMadDogJT8D From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 402 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 17924 times:

I landed at JFK this morning on DL85 from CAI and was surprised to see a VS A343, EI A330, AZ 763, TK 77W, and a few other foreign heavies on the ground at 6:30 AM. Went over to T4 for some breakfast between flights and there were people lying around everywhere having been stranded by cancellations. It was not a pretty sight there or at the DL terminals...

User currently offlineAmerican 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3996 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 16785 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting DC10sRule (Reply 3):
I wish our JFK friends a much better day today!!!!

Me too, I wish them the same.

Quoting Mir (Reply 4):
should also be said that JFK would have had problems yesterday even if it had all runways working - it was really a gale out there. So attributing the trouble to the runway construction is quite unfair

I agree, runway construction certainly doesn't help in managing the traffic flow, but it shouldn't be blamed as the main cause for delays. WX was terrible yesterday as stated.
I checked on aa.com, flight AA172 to BRU, it left 3 hours late! And also, flight AA24 bound from SFO arrived late. If it wasn't for the WX, flight AA172 maybe would have taken off slightly behind schedule, but not as late as 3 hours behind schedule.

LAXint'l, thanks for the interesting info. Keep up the good work   !

Ben Soriano



Ben Soriano
User currently offlineJFKPurser From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 486 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 15517 times:

I was there all day trying to nonrev to the sun. Got a seat and everything. Boarded and then sat on the plane two hours at the gate, where the plane was rocked and buffeted by ridiculous winds and sheets of heavy rain. My friends were working it and they along with the Captain were seriously not going to take off in it, but the Company wouldn't cancel the flight. Gusts were over 60. It wasn't the single runway that caused the cancellations, it was the weather. It was like a hurricane for about 5 solid hours.

Finally at 1945 they cancelled the flight 8 hours after scheduled departure. It was really just cruel for the passengers, all of whom had paid so much money to be disappointed after being given the false hope we would eventually leave.


User currently offlinebeertrucker From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 15043 times:

Quoting JFKPurser (Reply 7):
Finally at 1945 they cancelled the flight 8 hours after scheduled departure. It was really just cruel for the passengers, all of whom had paid so much money to be disappointed after being given the false hope we would eventually leave

Here we go again. It was cruel for the pax.And if there had been an opening at all in that you would have taken off. That is why you sit on the plane. I knew someone was going to bring up the wait times. Someone always does. But HELLO it is called weather. it was worse they they thought it was going to be when it hit. If you were not on the plane and there was an opening to go guess what you would still not go cuase no one is on the plane. I am sorry people have to wait on a plane but it is called mother nature for a reason. Meaning the airlines can not control it.

And you say your frineds where working the flight and wanted to have it cancelled well sorry if a captain don't want to fly guess what you don't. If the captain feels it is not safe it is his call.

Now also If you truely work for the airline. Then you know how this whole game is played and you making a comment that is just cruel for th pax on the plane tells me you don't know the first thing about weather deleys then. sorry everything you said tells em your apax and not a airline person.



Fly HI
User currently offlinen62na From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4593 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 13298 times:

Quoting beertrucker (Reply 8):
Here we go again. It was cruel for the pax.

JFKPurser was showing some compassion. It is cruel to keep the pax on the plane that long.


User currently offlinesectflyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 359 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 13218 times:

Looks like they are having a busy night at BDL with diversions coming in form the NYC airports and BOS as well.

User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 11, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 13116 times:

Quoting JFKPurser (Reply 7):
It was really just cruel for the passengers, all of whom had paid so much money to be disappointed after being given the false hope we would eventually leave.

They'll get their money back if they choose not to rebook. Life will go on. I can have some sympathy for them, but it's not cruel for an airline to try and provide the service they were paid to provide. It's certainly less cruel than just giving up and canceling the flight. People don't buy an airplane ticket to be comfortable, they buy an airplane ticket to go somewhere. If you have to sacrifice a bit of the former to aid the latter (within reason), so be it. If they really wanted to be comfortable, they could buy a hotel room for much less money and get a lot more comfort. But a hotel room won't get you to Florida.

Quoting n62na (Reply 9):
JFKPurser was showing some compassion. It is cruel to keep the pax on the plane that long.

Two hours is hardly onerous.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinen62na From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4593 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 13040 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 11):
If they really wanted to be comfortable, they could buy a hotel room for much less money and get a lot more comfort. But a hotel room won't get you to Florida.

Unless you take one of the Amtrak sleeper trains.   


User currently offlineLipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11459 posts, RR: 58
Reply 13, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 12861 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Yesterday was a terrible day. I went to midtown for lunch and all i got was a broken umbrella because of the winds. I can imagine how JFK and LGA were as all i could see from my window home was rain, rain and rain with strong winds.


New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 14, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 12801 times:

Quoting n62na (Reply 12):
Unless you take one of the Amtrak sleeper trains.

Which will not give you all that much more comfort, and will take 27 hours.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineGothamSpotter From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 586 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 12428 times:

Quoting JFKLGANYC (Thread starter):
Hundreds of flights cancelled, dozens of diversions because of a wind-swept rain with 31L closed.

The cancellations had nothing to do with the closed runway. For several hours yesterday afternoon, only a few planes per hour were trying to land or takeoff because the weather was so bad, sometimes there were 10-15 min gaps between movements.

[Edited 2010-03-14 18:49:50]

User currently offlineBlueman87 From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 535 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 11434 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 14):
Which will not give you all that much more comfort, and will take 27 hours.

-Mir

Amtrak Sleeper Cars are more comfortable then you think i would prefer them over some seat pitch's thats pointed at easyjet and air France sorry seats are crammed



B6 T5 JFK DL T2/3 JFK
User currently offlineJFKLGANYC From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3626 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 10980 times:

"The cancellations had nothing to do with the closed runway. For several hours yesterday afternoon, only a few planes per hour were trying to land or takeoff because the weather was so bad, sometimes there were 10-15 min gaps between movements."

I work for one of the airlines effected, thanks for the heads' up . . . but in this case I can assure you and many of the nay-sayers on here, that had 31L/13R been open, it would have been a bad day . . . not a downright ugly one.

When they went to single rwy ops yesterday, arrival rates went down to 20 aircraft per hour. All flights were groundstopped. Flights in the air were diverted.

The weather was bad yesterday, but it was not unflyable by any means. It was not "like a hurricane." It was a stalled Nor'Easter with wind swept rain.

The culprit at JFK yesterday was the 1 runway due to the winds. Had both been available, it would have been a regular bad day.


"Single runways did not really have much to do with it, and no it was not the first time with single runway ops %u2013 that happen by luck on the first day of the closure already two weeks ago."

Quite wrong. The single runways have a A LOT to do with it.

A couple of weeks ago, they went to single runway ops very briefly . . . it wasn't long enough to register on the radar scope. This was a much different situation.

[Edited 2010-03-14 21:01:55]

User currently offlineJFKPurser From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 486 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 10097 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 2):
Single runways did not really have much to do with it, and no it was not the first time with single runway ops – that happen by luck on the first day of the closure already two weeks ago.

It was the weather (winds) with gust above 60knots simply precluded operations for most carriers. For instance Delta has a 15kt restriction between the base wind and wind gust, while AA could not go if gust were in excess of 50kts. Additionally several flights went as far and reported severe turbulence below 3,000ft which precludes US carriers atleast from flying into known severe turbulence. Add in the low level windshear experienced by many flights also, it was simply not a day to go flying.

Back to the runways, ATC allowed some people to try to shoot approaches to 04's, but people failed to make those also and went around. Also LGA was down to one rwy for much of the time which also effects JFK configuration and traffic flow.

Last piece of info, the winds were so strong the controllers were feeling sea sick up in the tower, and due to wind strength the anemometer blew off leaving JFK with no minute-by-minute wind measurement. Instead tower had to use NWS estimates which were updated every 5mins.

Thanks for so clearly encapsulating the machanics of the situation.

Quoting beertrucker (Reply 8):
Now also If you truely work for the airline. Then you know how this whole game is played and you making a comment that is just cruel for th pax on the plane tells me you don't know the first thing about weather deleys then. sorry everything you said tells em your apax and not a airline person.

Hey BEERTRUCKER dude, do you drink much? And actually, I've been flying for the same carrier for 24 years now and am keenly aware of just about any weather/mechanical situation imaginable. That's because I have personally been through each one of them. Multiple times.

Two hours is hardly onerous.[/quote]

OK Mir, let's see if I can give you a bettter idea of the picture. Departure was scheduled at 1140. Because of a mechanical at the hangar, it was rescheduled to 1330. The plane finally reached the gate about 1430. Pax boarded at about 1530. At this point, the weather was insane. My good friend was the Purser working the flight, and she came out to to tell me that the Captain already knew there would be no way the flight would go based on current wind conditions being way beyond what the Company would allow, not to mention way out of bounds of what he was personally and professionally OK about flying in. She and the rest of the FAs were genuinely concerned about their own personal safety being forced to fly under such circumstances, and they, like me, are seasoned veterans. And honestly, had I not been so bloody anxious to get to where I was going, I might have shared their concern.

Also, the catering trucks were unable to service AC at any of the gates because the AC were being buffetted by such intense winds that they threatened to uspset the catering trucks as they were positioned against the AC doors. So, a decision was made to lift the carts into the terminal and board them through the jetway.

Another 2-3 hours passed with the weather conditions unchanged -- even worsening. The field was completely closed at one point. The plane was on the ground jumping around in what would be considered to be heavy turbulence if we had been flying. No AC were being pushed back, according to the JFK Towers instructions. At about 1800, passenger service decided to let the pax deplane. At this point, every other flight in the concourse had cancelled. The pax were instructed to wait in the lounge until about 2030, at which point the flight was cancelled, for no real concrete reason, because at that point the weather was getting better and neither the cockpit or cabin crew was running out of duty time. This was about 9 hours after scheduled departure time, when the plane actually could have been pushed off the gate to taxi. Granted, there would have been several hours spent in line for takeoff by making this decision, but at least everyine would have gotten to their vacation on time and there would have been some reward for the time they had invested waiting around for what ended up to be nothing.

So, I cannot really understand the value of having these paying customers wait there all day long with the hope that the flight might go when it should have been cancelled when everyine know it would be impossible (and they would have had better opportunies to rebook themselves for earlier flights), but finally was for some odd reason when it was finally beginning to look like a real possibility.

This stings badly enough when you're sitting there as a pass-rider not having paid a penny. There were people all over NYC yesterday who paid thousands of dollars to have that experinece and be just as disappointed as I was. That's all I'm trying to say.

And just because the weather is terrible does not automatically mean that customer service has to be, too.


User currently offlinerobo65 From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 169 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 10038 times:

I wonder if B6 will get their exemption that they asked for from the DOT/FAA on the 3hr tarmac rule during the construction period?

User currently offlineEagleboy From Niue, joined Dec 2009, 1917 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 7042 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 2):
Last piece of info, the winds were so strong the controllers were feeling sea sick up in the tower, and due to wind strength the anemometer blew off leaving JFK with no minute-by-minute wind measurement. Instead tower had to use NWS estimates which were updated every 5mins.

Thats pretty dramatic!


User currently offlineJayhup From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 452 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6879 times:

Quoting JFKLGANYC (Reply 17):
The weather was bad yesterday, but it was not unflyable by any means. It was not "like a hurricane." It was a stalled Nor'Easter with wind swept rain.

Ummm....a 75mph recorded wind gust at JFK was, in fact, hurricane strength.

I live right on the Atlantic Ocean not far from Kennedy and I can tell you that the wind was the worst that I've ever seen.

So to dismiss this as a "regular" Nor'Easter is being silly....

JH


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12961 posts, RR: 25
Reply 22, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5945 times:

Quoting JFKLGANYC (Reply 17):
The weather was bad yesterday, but it was not unflyable by any means. It was not "like a hurricane." It was a stalled Nor'Easter with wind swept rain.

Yeah, but:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 2):
It was the weather (winds) with gust above 60knots simply precluded operations for most carriers. For instance Delta has a 15kt restriction between the base wind and wind gust, while AA could not go if gust were in excess of 50kts. Additionally several flights went as far and reported severe turbulence below 3,000ft which precludes US carriers atleast from flying into known severe turbulence. Add in the low level windshear experienced by many flights also, it was simply not a day to go flying.

So for some, their company policies or FAA regs kept them grounded.

Quoting JFKPurser (Reply 18):
My good friend was the Purser working the flight, and she came out to to tell me that the Captain already knew there would be no way the flight would go based on current wind conditions being way beyond what the Company would allow, not to mention way out of bounds of what he was personally and professionally OK about flying in.

And for others it was that plus professional judgment.

Everyone has their own idea about what's flyable vs unflyable but I for one am glad when professional pilots stand their ground and refuse to fly when they feel it's too risky.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8657 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5648 times:

Quoting beertrucker (Reply 8):
Now also If you truely work for the airline. Then you know how this whole game is played and you making a comment that is just cruel for th pax on the plane tells me you don't know the first thing about weather deleys then. sorry everything you said tells em your apax and not a airline person.

I sure as hell hope you don't work for an airline. That's just a poor attitude to have towards your customers. Just because "that's how the game is played" doesn't mean it's OK. This is why the flying public wants a Federaly imposed bill of rights. As a passenger I would have much rather had my flight canceled right from the start instead of sitting around for 8 hours hoping that it would go.

Quoting Jayhup (Reply 21):
Ummm....a 75mph recorded wind gust at JFK was, in fact, hurricane strength.
I live right on the Atlantic Ocean not far from Kennedy and I can tell you that the wind was the worst that I've ever seen.
So to dismiss this as a "regular" Nor'Easter is being silly....

A hurricane needs sustained winds. 75mph gusts is a regular nor'eater. just saying.


User currently offlinebeertrucker From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5579 times:

Quoting JFKPurser (Reply 7):
Finally at 1945 they cancelled the flight 8 hours after scheduled departure. It was really just cruel for the passengers, all of whom had paid so much money to be disappointed after being given the false hope we would eventually leave.
Quoting JFKPurser (Reply 18):
Hey BEERTRUCKER dude, do you drink much? And actually, I've been flying for the same carrier for 24 years now and am keenly aware of just about any weather/mechanical situation imaginable. That's because I have personally been through each one of them. Multiple times.

You never once mentioned mechanical once in your first post you made it seem like it was all the weather for the deley. If you don't want people say things like I did, you bettter put the whole story in. Cause that changes everything to what you said.



Fly HI
25 as739x : How exactly did the runway closure not effect this? Winds 080@60+ would have been out of crosswind limitations for 13R arrivals anyhow. As stated abo
26 Post contains links JFKLGANYC : "How exactly did the runway closure not effect this? Winds 080@60+ would have been out of crosswind limitations for 13R arrivals anyhow. As stated abo
27 Airportugal310 : Agreed. What is it with certain people on these forums defending the crap-shoot way that airlines handle delays?! Just because you work at the airlin
28 LAXintl : The point here is JFK could have all 4 runways running and it would not have mattered. Plane after plane had missed approaches, and guys on the ground
29 richierich : Don't you suppose they were affected by the weather in the Northeast too over the weekend? Trains (especially ones that rely on overhead power lines)
30 beertrucker : Well like i said in a later post if he had mentioed the mtc issue in the first post i most likely would not have jumped over it the way i did. ever s
31 sectflyer : It was rocking pretty good here in CT as well. But I imagine that The diversions were going to BDL is that they have plenty of room on the ground to
32 JFKLGANYC : Hourly observations for BDL during the same period. Read from bottom to top for correct order. Noticeably less windy. 140651 BKN016 OVC025 6 RABR 42 4
33 sectflyer : Are passengers ever deplaned at BDL in a diversion? I would love to see a nice big 744 or 340 parked at the IAB there!
34 n62na : It's very comfortable. You get as much room as an AA Flagship Suite F class "suite seat" with their "roomette" or you get 3 times as much room (with
35 n62na : Train #98 Silver Meteor From Miami, FL (MIA) 8:40 am Fri Mar 12, 2010 Departed: on time. To New York, NY - Penn Station (NYP) Sat Mar 13, 2010 11:37
36 Airportugal310 : Ding Ding we have a winner!
37 richierich : Are you kidding me? I'm sorry, and I don't mean to sound abrasive, but what is the point of your post? If my flight suffers a mechanical delay, then
38 N62NA : I'm pointing out that, in actual productivity time, taking the train is actually better than taking the plane on MIA-NYC. Having flown MIA-NYC for ma
39 spacecadet : You've obviously never taken an Amtrak sleeper. I recommend trying it. Technically, hurricanes require 75mph sustained winds. Not gusts. The highest
40 Post contains images Mir : The number of go-arounds and pilots who didn't want to take off would lead me to believe it was unflyable. And as a passenger, I'd much rather sit ar
41 N62NA : But you're not seeing the entire picture. After flying all day just to arrive in NYC in the evening, after the office is closed, there's a $300 hotel
42 richierich : The truth is that I like trains (and all transportation types) almost as much as aviation, but I honestly don't think the train makes a lot of sense
43 N62NA : I know, at first glance it would seem not to make any sense. But in actuality (and again, I'm only speaking from my experience flying AA from MIA to
44 AAAL : You must have bad luck, I have flown this route at least 25x a year and I rarely have a delay to either JFK OR LGA. All of my travel is on AA.
45 N62NA : Perhaps. So far this year, I've flown MIA-NAS-MIA twice. Delayed on each leg, the last one was a 3 hour delay. Did MIA-LAX-MIA a few weeks ago. 2 hou
46 MAH4546 : Experienced JFK for the first time since the closure this week, all on AA. Flew in from LAX on March 16th, everything was fine. Take off to Barcelona
47 American 767 : They don't bother me either, even if all the other passengers scream and get angry, as long as I don't miss a connecting flight. That's why when I co
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
LGA Rwy Ops posted Mon May 22 2006 16:42:45 by Boeingfanyyz
What Happened To IB's BCN-JFK Flight? posted Sun Dec 26 2004 14:32:26 by ContinentalEWR
Sahara, Jet Finally Ready For International Ops posted Sat Mar 20 2004 03:19:06 by B747-437B
How Long Before Single Pilot Ops? posted Sat Sep 6 2003 01:44:23 by BoingGoingGone
Which BizJets Are Ceritfied For Single-Pilot Ops? posted Tue Feb 25 2003 18:51:20 by KM732
Hooters Air? It's Finally Happened... posted Fri Dec 27 2002 12:25:06 by JBirdAV8r
Finally At New Rwy. At O'Hare? posted Tue May 22 2001 05:41:23 by Ampropilot2b
What Happened To American At Jfk? posted Fri Mar 2 2001 02:42:06 by DL3744
TAM To Fly GIG-MIA & GIG-JFK On S08 (finally!) posted Tue Dec 11 2007 16:39:01 by LipeGIG
SIA Cargo JFK Ops Crashing And Burning posted Sun Oct 21 2007 13:56:08 by EYFlyer88